Israel reportedly used fake social accounts to garner support from US lawmakers

I'm not trolling. Can you make a coherent counter argument that's not "I'm a Zionist stop embarrassing us". I'm stupid. Explain your position to me. Is your point "ofcourse the security council is not going to go after China" or is your point "they go after China, who is really committing a genocide, just the same way they go after Israel fighting a war", or is your point "China is cool, Israel is committing the terrible crimes and so ofcourse the UN goes after it"?

Tell me what you're claiming and what metric or some objective method we should use to measure your claim. I'm claiming Israel is picked on in the UN disproportionately. I can't even tell from your reply what's your position on this topic.

I wouldn't call myself a Zionist. I'm an (ex-)Israeli. The right of the Jewish people to live in Israel is an axiom for me. It's ridiculous that's debated. It's a fact and Israel is not going away.

I think your point is maybe don't use China as an excuse. That's maybe fair enough. But it's not the topic. I'm not debating whether Israel should have a pass for genocide because China does, I'm debating whether Israel is disproportionately attacked which is what I would consider antisemitism. This claim can be debated independently of the other multiple things there are to debate here. Israel should not have free pass to do anything and it should also not be subjected to the lynch mob it's being subjected to, these are not mutually exclusive.

How do they know that?

I'm saying they could not vote in the US which is what the discussion is about. The Palestinians also had elections. I don't think what people are asking Israel to do here is to let the Palestinians have elections while being occupied?

The total physical occupation of Germany lasted 11 years. The final status of Germany was only determined in 1990 in the 2+4 agreement. That's a 45 year period. The US still has bases in Germany.

I agree there are a lot of differences. My point though still stands I think. The reason Palestinians don't enjoy equal rights to Israelis is that they live in an occupied territory of still to be determined status. Whatever process happened in Germany after WW-II failed to happen in the west bank after 1967. Israel would love to resolve this problem, ofcourse on terms it can live with. Israel and the Palestinians have not been able to get to terms they can both live with (understatement of the day) and so the situation persists.

I also think my other point stands that if Israel did annex the West Bank and/or Gaza and give Palestinians equal rights, as it did in Jerusalem or the Golan Heights that would not be viewed as an acceptable solution. The reason I raise this is because criticism is levelled at Israel for not doing that. The Palestinians would not consider this to resolve the conflict and neither would anyone else, they say exactly what you're saying here. I'm not saying the reason Israel isn't doing it is international law but surely the lack of acceptance from anyone to this solution is part of that thought process (and also the question of maintaining Jewish majority in Israel).

Palestinians did get some control, they got total control of Gaza in 2005, partial control earlier of Gaza and the West Bank as part of the Oslo accords.

I also want to be clear that I'm opposed to Israeli settlement in the west bank. I don't think that's helpful. I also don't think it's the real problem here. The legal status of the west bank in Israeli law is still occupied territory, there hasn't been any formal annexation.

One thing I can say as to the annexation/reunification of Jerusalem is that Israel is doing a much better job than Jordan did in maintaining and protecting the rights of all religions to have access to their holy sites. When Jerusalem was under Jordanian control Jews could not access it at all and I think Christians also less than today. So I think Israel is a reasonable guardian of this place and all its citizens and visitors are treated fairly. The final status of Jerusalem would presumably be something agreed to as part of the (maybe never) peace agreement. I think between leaving it "occupied" and the current status the current status is/was the better option for everyone.

There are voices by the way in the right wing of Israel calling for annexation and granting of citizenship.

I don't think Israel is "flaunting" international law more so than most of the rest of the world. It just happens to be in an unsolvable mess of a situation. Israel and Israelis really wanted this resolved in the peace process of the early 90's and were willing to go a long way towards what Palestinians were asking for, but didn't really meet a partner. So to blame this solely on Israel, which is admittedly to some degree in a position of power, but is also very vulnerable, is not fair. I would say at least half the blame is on the Palestinians.

Clearly people in this discussion are getting different views of reality. There is definitely a long term rise in extremism in Israel but what that means to someone who is closely familiar with Israel and someone who is not can be two very different things.

I don't think people outside Israel think that Israelis are engaged in self reflection. That aspect isn't something that's reported on. There are some Israelis that don't care about innocents in Gaza, and it's easy to just pick up that story if it furthers the reality that you believe in. Reality isn't one, or two, or one hundred stories. It is a continuum.

Israel being a "western colonial enterprise" is not an analysis. It is a talking point. I've seen it hundreds if not thousands of times in online discourse on this topic. It's something that has been pushed for some time (a decade or two?) in various circles. The history of Israel can be studied superficially in one semester in University. To really understand the period and all the nuances, and the related historical processes, get a PhD. There are good lectures on YouTube by historians and good resources on the Internet that give you a taste but you need to put in time.

It's also about the semantics, what exactly do these terms mean, a common theme in the information war arena is to use words in unusual ways or to redefine them in a way more convenient to your cause.